SC judge questions why military courts weren’t abolished in 21st Amendment

#judge #questions #military #courts #werent #abolished #21st #Amendment

Supreme Court Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar inquired on Wednesday why the 21st Constitutional Amendment did not invalidate military courts.

A section of a seven -member constitutional bench, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, heard an intra -court appeal against the case of civilians in military courts.

Representing Etzaz Ahsan during the hearing, lawyer Latif Khosa objected to the arguments by Salman Akram Raja yesterday, saying that Raja is also his lawyer.

He said that Raja did not agree with Justice Muneeb Akhtar’s decision, while he fully agreed with him and he had not given any such instruction to the Raja.

Meanwhile, Raja made it clear that he did not agree with just one paragraph of Justice Muneeb’s decision and said that he was standing with his arguments a day earlier, adding that the impression that was born in the media Was misled.

Addressing Justice Naeem Akhter Afghan, Raja said that his question regarding the absence of international ban on the judicial martial of the citizens has been widely highlighted in the headlines.

For this, Justice Afghan said that his question was clear, he advised against focusing on social media because he did not do so.

Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel remarked that the media should be cautious in reporting, while Justice Musarrat Hilali said that although he often wanted to respond to the news about it, his status as a judge did not allow him. Give

Continuing, Khosa argued that the entire nation was watching the case and claimed that the SC itself was a trial. However, Justice Aminuddin did not agree and said that the court was not hearing the case and would decide according to the constitution and the law.

The lawyer further said that the Koran and Islamic teachings also emphasized judicial freedom and further cited events from Islamic history.

In response, Justice Mandokhil said that there is judicial freedom during the Rashid Khalifa era.

According to the lawyer, Article 2 (D) was against Islamic teachings and that the military trial was tried confidentially.

However, Justice Aminuddin replied that Khawaja Harsh had already explained that there was a proper procedure for fair trials, and if it was not followed, it was a separate issue.

Identifying Khosa’s extensive career in politics, Justice Mandokil asked what steps he had taken to cancel Section 2 (D) during his time in various key positions, adding that if needed, he added. Parliament is free to end it.

Khosa argued that in the past all legislation against Article 175 was banned. Justice Mazhar questioned that in the 21st amendment, military courts were not banned.

Khosa replied that the amendment was not banned due to the terms of the war time and its two -year limit.

During the hearing, Justice Hilali noted that Parliament has approved the 26th Amendment but – Khosa – The courts are expected to be banned. Justice Mandokhel asked whether Khosa had voted against the constitutional amendment, to which the lawyer replied that the Pakistan Tehreek -e -Insaf (PTI) did not participate in the voting.

Justice Mandokhil remarked that it was Khosa’s duty to oppose it and play its role.

In addition, Khosa also raised the question as to why the police had not stopped the crowd involved in the May 9 riots. On this, Justice Hilali asked if he wanted to see the bodies instead – because of a clash between law enforcement and people.

After the end of his arguments, Khosa, PTI founder Imran Khan’s lawyer, Ozir Bhandari presented his arguments and agreed with all the arguments except the Raja’s objection to a part of Justice Muneeb’s decision.

Justice Mazhar asked why the Parliament has introduced the practice and procedure act after that and why they cannot go beyond their review.

Justice Aminuddin also raised the question as to why if it was just one review, why a large bench was formed, to which Bhandari replied that seven new judges were hearing appeals.

Justice Mazhar noted that the right to appeal is in other laws and that the arguments of Bhandari are different from the Raja. He further proposed to review the scope of intra -court appeals for future matters.

Meanwhile, Justice Mandokhel remarked that the 26th Constitutional Amendment has brought a new setup and asked whether the previous rules are still applicable and a warning has been warned against forcing the court to any uncertainty.

Justice Mazhar pointed out that under Article 184, these decisions had hurt people in the past and therefore the Parliament had given the right to appeal.

Justice Afghan said that even if the Bhandari argument was accepted, their requests would be completed, and they were seen defending this important decision.

The court later adjourned the hearing till Thursday (tomorrow).